Last post on Nov 25, 2013 at 11:27 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Lexus GS 430, Acura RL, BMW 5 Series, Volvo S80, Audi A6, Infiniti M35, Infiniti M45, Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Cadillac STS, Sedan
Nov 21, 2006 (1:48 pm)
I know "safety" hasn't been a major concern of this forum, but ti's in the news today, so:
"Imported models took all 13 spots on the U.S. insurance industry's list of safest vehicles this year ... Winners for the 2007 model year included the Audi A6 in the large car category; the Audi A-4, Saab 9-3 and Subaru Legacy (with optional stability control) for mid-size cars; the Hyundai Entourage and Kia Sedona minivans; the Mercedes M-class and Volvo XC90 luxury SUVs; the Acura RDX, Honda Pilot and Subaru B9 Tribeca mid-size SUVs; and the Honda CR-V and Subaru Forester small SUVs. All 13 vehicles are tops in protecting people in front, side and rear crashes based on institute tests during the year."
#8731 of 10348 Re: Audi, safe at first [domenickamarc]
Nov 21, 2006 (2:46 pm)
Yes, but the poorest head restraint scores also went to imports, so there's work to be done....note Infiniti M in the "poor" category for whiplash protection (ie: seat/head restraint design).
And it may be unprecedented to see Avalon and Sienna both rated as "poor" for protection in a rear crash. The standards for these tests are obviously very tough since I'd feel safe in virtually any of these models. For example, for a vehicle to receive the highest rating, it must also offer ESC.
Acceptable rear protection
BMW 3-series 4dr
Lexus IS 250/350
Marginal rear protection
Lexus ES 350
Lexus GS 350
Toyota FJ Cruiser
Poor rear protection
Honda Accord 4dr
#8732 of 10348 Re: Audi, safe at first [cstiles]
Nov 21, 2006 (3:38 pm)
In 2000, I picked up an A6 4.2 quattro sport -- it was a 2001 model. It had -- heck it was an alphabet soup of TLA's like ESP, APC, ETC, TCPIP, ABS, and a partridge in a pear tree, it had sat nav and a hands free factory phone for what that is worth (with a directory, phone book and so on), too.
Now, the gov says "ESP" is a requirement in all cars by 2012? That is either 12 or 13 years later! My '87 Audi had ABS and it was two years behind my friends '85 BMW which also had it.
Even in the 2 minute demonstration given on the Today Show this morning about the safest cars, the A3 spinning out of control with ESP off is an impressive testimonial to the value of ESP.
Yet, you can bet even the cheapies these days have power operated everything, CD changers, sunroofs and at least A/C if not climate control.
Having a car without ESP seems -- these days -- about as nutz as it would be to buy a car without a steering wheel.
ESP, as I recall from the Today show, is like a guardian angel watching over us, bla bla bla.
And the example was a rain slicked test track not snow, ice or other lower coefficient of friction surface.
After 5 driving schools now (4 Audi 1 BMW), it really seems "most ridiculous" not to put ESP in all cars from this day forward.
Are "more well to do" folks (One Must Assume?) the only ones who need such wonderful technology?
There are so few LPS cars, one would think the cars with greater market penetration would be the best place to put this technology and perhaps save all of us -- our lives and our money (via insurance premiums.)
12 years later? By that time, the LPS cars will have force fields and there will be a mechanism that will "automatically raise the shields [Mr. Sulu]."
Give me a break! Or, er, brake!
#8733 of 10348 Re: Audi, safe at first [markcincinnati]
Nov 21, 2006 (6:56 pm)
I totally agree that automakers should make ESP/ESC standard, without the need for a mandate from Uncle Sam. I suppose it's a matter of economics and marketplace acceptance, but hopefully the market forces will bring this to reality before 2012. It's also good to see that tire pressure monitoring systems will also become required in a couple years. We are notorious for driving around with grossly underinflated tires. That alone was a significant contributing factor to the Ford Explorer debacle of a few years ago, design flaws of the Explore notwithstanding.
The fact that ABS did not reduce accident frequency when the systems were first introduced was very unfortunate. Due to driver ignorance and lack of proper training, drivers freaked out when the ABS systems made unprecedented vibrations, pulsations, and sounds; sometimes contributing to accidents rather than preventing them.
Fortunately, ESP is much more seamless and transparent from the driver's standpoint.
#8734 of 10348 Audi adjusts to American way
Nov 21, 2006 (8:54 pm)
Audi of America is mounting an effort to reshape its image. Johan de Nysschen, executive vice president in charge of Audi of America said the company needs to be "more American" in its marketing strategy -- more provocative and less about simply German engineering.Audi plans to emphasize the lifestyle of Audi owners. Its customers are mostly self-made affluent people who are younger and more likely to have a college-degree than those of its well-heeled luxury competitors, he said. U.S. Audi sales are up 4.1 percent this year and the company is on track to report its best-ever U.S. sales year, with around 85,000 vehicles sold.
#8735 of 10348 Question about Tire
Nov 21, 2006 (10:40 pm)
I bought RL on 11/19/06. I felt the transmission tends to stay at higher gear. i.e. felt short of torque. It is non-tech package. But i just realized it has PAX tires(run flat tire). Its diameter is 20 inch instead of 17. is this feel of short torque due to larger tire without changing transmission related firmware?
I don't like PAX system. I saw bad reviews and I have to change not only tires but wheels also if i want to go for conventional tires. BAD dealer....
#8736 of 10348 Re: Question about Tire [royal3]
Nov 22, 2006 (3:41 am)
A couple of points:
1) You aren't alone in your dislike for the PAX system, checkout this discussion (different vehicle, same tire) for more information: steve_, "Run-flat, self-sealing, PAX tires for Minivans" #1, 29 Nov 2004 7:27 pm
2) It is very unlikely that the diameter of the overall tire and wheel assembly is anything other than what Honda designed it to be. Consider the following:
Acura RL standard tires: 245-50 R17
Acura RL cmbs/pax tires: 245/680-460
The wheels of the standard tires are of course 17" in diameter while the wheels of the PAX system are 18.11" in diameter. As for the tires, the overall diameter is 26.8" for the standard setup while your PAX tires are 26.77".
True, the wheels are larger for the PAX system, however, there is virtually no difference in overall tire diameter and as such, any differences in revolutions per mile will be irrelevant.
#8737 of 10348 Re: Question about Tire [shipo]
Nov 22, 2006 (8:44 am)
#8738 of 10348 Inside Line Audi S6 Follow-up
Nov 26, 2006 (10:53 am)
Apparently Edmunds does not share all the favorable opinions noted here. The S6 did not compare well with their counterparts at MB and BMW. Kind of surprising.
#8739 of 10348 Re: Inside Line Audi S6 Follow-up [houdini1]
Nov 26, 2006 (10:11 pm)
"Apparently Edmunds does not share all the favorable opinions noted here. The S6 did not compare well with their counterparts at MB and BMW. Kind of surprising."
And quite different from the conclusion reached at Automobile Magazine, when they compared the M5, the S6, and the Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG. The found the S6 and the E63 neck-and-neck for first, with the M5 not comparing well: "At an expected $85,000, the Benz digs deepest into the budget, but it is worth every penny--against the stopwatch and in smiles-per-miles currency. It wins on merit and appeal, even though it surpasses the S6 only by a whisker.The fact that the M5 has fallen so far so fast tells you three things: That this is an extremely fast-moving business. That even a well-founded status quo can be eroded by clever evolution. And that the big-engine-in-a-mid-size-car game is more competitive than ever."
Fame is fleeting and and love is fickle in the automotive press.